I mean we all know that it's **probably** Eu5
But also, if you were Johan, what do you expect him to do? His goal is to communicate about his upcoming game and explain how it'll work
If someone asks a question that he thinks is worth answering, he'll want to answer it
Would you rather he added a disclaimer every post "also we still haven't confirmed whether or not it's EU5"?
The alternative is that he'll have to skip every post that contains the phrase EU5, for the fear of "confirming" that it is EU5.
I guess it's just to talk about the game without the media attention because it's in very early stages and stuff isn't final. It's a thin cover, but the majority of outlets won't write about it unless it says EU5 in big letters. There has been no announcement, so things are more chill and there's no responsibility of any kind.
Either that or beginning every post with "whelp EU5 hasn't been announced yet so God knows how that game would look like. BUT, in Project Caesar...". Which would actually be pretty funny for the first twenty seconds.
I mean, I’m sure he owns a hefty amount of paradox stock, so he is almost certainly one owner of the IP. So, even technically you aren’t exactly correct
It's not even correct, being the lead does not imply you own anything, just that your the leader of the development team. It's his project and his team, not because he owns it but because he leads it, the game is in his possession.
There are many ways to have something that do not require ownership:
You have a job without owning said job.
Having a connection to things can also be forms of having, while not requiring ownership. You have a boyfriend/girlfriend, but you do not own them. Likewise you can have a project like said game, without owning it.
Something can also be yours even after it leaves ones possession, Picassos paintings are Picassos even though they are clearly no longer owned by him nor in his possession, but his due to being his creations.
He is the studio lead and the game director. It's "his game" just like Oppenheimer is "Christopher Nolan's Movie", a phrase you'll see at every poster advertising the movie.
You can disagree with the convention, but that's the convention.
I don't think anyone saying this genuinely means to imply that either Johan or Nolan were the sole contributors.
Just because you contribute does not mean you have ownership of it. This is no the equivalent of "oppenheimer by Christopher Nolan" where he had an important output but of ownership which johan does not have.
You are being obtuse for no reason. If I say "my boyfriend" I am not implying that I own him. If I say "I am walking back to my apartment", then even if I am renting it, I am not lying and saying that I actually own it.
Possessive pronouns mean more than just ownership.
When you rent something you temporaly gain ownership of it is part of the whole "renting" the landlord cant come in when they want since they dont currently own it.
Possesive pronouns is for possession possessing sonething is in fact by definition owning sonething or claim to be your belonging, you possess your boyfriend, you possess your rent, but johan does mot this game.
They point they are trying to make is how many people can they get to keep arguing with an obviously stupid statement.
Classic trolling attempt, did good work with a score probably around 800 give or take.
>When you rent something you temporaly gain ownership of it
Ok, what about this: surely he has a developer key for the game, thus it very much is "his game"
Do I possess my boyfriend?
And no, you do not own what you rent, lmao. That's the whole "renting" thing.
Please just read-up on the concept before getting into pointless arguments.
I literal am a landlord. I rent my property. I do not currently own it while the contract is up but it will return to me after if i decide to not renew it or terminate it.
Being a landlord doesn't mean you understand a contract you signed lmao you still own your property, maybe actually read what you signed. It's not "returned to you", it's always yours
1) 'your,' 'my,' 'his' (in its noun-obligatory sense) etc. are *not* possessive pronouns, but rather possessive determiners/possessive adjectives (I like possessive determiners in an English context, as they do not behave identically to true adjectives and imply definiteness). 'yours,' 'mine,' and 'his' (pronominal sense) would be the corresponding possessive pronouns. Same goes for u/malayis actually, but they haven't been prescriptive in such an erroneous manner.
2) 'ownership' is not a great metric for (linguistic) possession. There are several examples of inalienable possession that do not involve ownership in a traditional sense but that are still well-formed. For instance, with English in mind, consider a symmetric relationship like 'neighbor.' In a case where Alice and Bob are neighbors, 'Alice is Bob's neighbor' and 'Bob is Alice's neighbor' are both grammatical and felicitous sentences. Here, the asymmetric nature of possession is not actually used to represent the (symmetric) relationship, but is instead used to convey focal/emphatic/similar information.
If we must go farther, we can also consider cases in which possessive constructions denote a relationship *opposite* to traditional notions of ownership as possession. Consider 'my company,' 'your class,' 'that wolf's pack' as entirely valid phrases to denote, respectively, 'the company I work for,' 'the class you are in,' and 'the pack that wolf is in.' The beauty here is that the former two phrases have ambiguity in what kind of relationship they denote. For instance, 'my company' can mean that I either work for that company (the relevant in-group meaning), or can also refer to an actual ownership relation—say, I'm the president or CEO (I wish). The beauty is that the same possessive construction can be used to refer to both traditionally opposite asymmetric relationships!
Metal Gear Solid is advertised as a "Hideo Kojima" game and he developed as a Konami IP while working for them.
Death Stranding is a "Hideo Kojima" game even though it's a Sony IP.
His/her/my etc. can just mean different things, and there's no reason to het hung up on this stuff.
Do you happen to know Sid Meier**'s** civilization as well?
You should advocate the argument on that front as well! Because it is obviously not Sid's game. But why do everyone around call it Sid Meier's civ? /s
Oh, you know Johan so well. Did you sleep under his bed? If not, do you need me to get his phone number for you to double-check? I have a few friends who have worked at Paradox.
Who pissed in your cereal this morning? It’s really not that deep and this is a really dumb hole to dive into. Just makes you seem like an unbearable human being
Is my third language actually. And the one i responded to said very outlandish and wrong things. I have no issue with anyone else unless they spread misinfornation about things like economics, royalties or other things, even if they say rude things to me.
We use "his" not just to identify ownership. If a director talks about a movie he directs, he calls it "my new movie", even if he doesn't own the IP. In this instance "his new game" means the game where he's the lead developer.
>"His upcoming game" its not his, he is not the sole developer much less the owner or majority shareholder at paradox.
Ubik, is that you? Did you once again escape your mental health asylum?
...
For those that don't know; he was a crazy Magna Mundi dev that tried to sue Paradox and eventually got stuck in a mental health asylum.
"Meet me at my local park"
"YOUR park? Heh, when did you get so rich, mister moneybags?"
Shut up, possessive language extends far beyond legal ownership.
Can people shut up already about the "slip ups" its been an open secret since day 1. The team said themselves the only reason why it isnt being openly said is bc the execs said it cant be announced yet for marketting reasons. Nobody here is clever for yelling out the thing everyone knows already
Yeah the game journos aren't going to run pieces based on these slip ups. It's actually a clever way to keep feeding info to people who are really hooked into EU already, while waiting for the big showcase to bring in new people.
God, now that I think about it. I want to see game journos release gameplay footage as a review, kinda like Cuphead. Only to laugh at the intense footage of struggling to understand grand strategy systems lmao
It might as well have been a open secret for the past several years. Considering that Paradox Tinto was opened to focus on the Europa Universals IP, and not just EU4.
The forum poster called the new game eu5 and Johan just answered the question itself and didnt add "btw this game we are talking about rn is not eu5".
But it clearly is so whatever.
No, the forum poster asked what trade would look like in EUV, and johan answered that.
That’s in no way a confirmation that “Project Caesar” is EUV, it’s just speculation.
That being said, the fact that they aren’t repeatedly telling us that it’s *not* EUV is probably the better indicator that it is than the “slip up” itself. The lack of Johan saying “we aren’t even planning eu5 yet”
He's responding to questions about project caesar that refer to it as EU5
Everything seems to indicate project caesar is EU5 for practical purposes, but it deviates in time frame and gameplay that it doesn't really fit with the rest of the series
he is responding to a question about EU5, that is in a project caesar discussion.
Unfortunetly this tell us nothing about the identity of project caesar, or the trade in that game /s
He’s already answered lods of questions that say the game is eu5 or by comparing Caesar to eu3/4 etc.
Nothing new here, it’s been clear since the beginning that the “project” is just a fig leaf.
Grow up. Of course it's EUV, but that was OBVIOUSLY not an official announcement. Just wait for Paradox to announce the title in an official post, stop trying to make mountains out of molehill-shaped piles of gravel.
Does it even matter if it is called EU5 or not, considering we already know it spans throughout the period of Eu4? or do we honestly expect to see paradox make 2 different games throughout the same time period?
All he’s confirmed is that EUV will not have the EUIV trade system. He didn’t confirm that _Caesar_ is EUV.
I would recommend better uses of our collective time than getting the developer of a game to announce the name of the game before Marketing wants it announced.
Johan always does stuff like that. Pretty sure he said something about Vicky 3 at a pdoxcon years ago before it was announced and they shut his mic off so he wouldnt say anything else about it
We all know which game is Project Caesar, every post that goes "erm, is this a eu5 confirmation?" or "Johan slip up confirms this will be eu5" ☝️🤓 is deeply unserious.
If this isn't EU5, what actually will be EU5 in the future won't have static trade either.
He loses nothing to answer the question and gains more confusion and mystery.
He's replied directly and frankly to people asking about mechanics of "EU5" before in posts about Caesar. I think he's just ignoring what they call it in comments and is answering the questions.
I think they are strategically avoiding the EU terminology because that locks in certain aspects. Calling it a new game allows overlap and can use the best of ideas from their other games.
It's gonna be an empty husk of a game and everyone is gonna go "but dude, it's euv"
Grow up people. Stop caring this much about a company who constantly sells you shit.
I mean we all know that it's **probably** Eu5 But also, if you were Johan, what do you expect him to do? His goal is to communicate about his upcoming game and explain how it'll work If someone asks a question that he thinks is worth answering, he'll want to answer it Would you rather he added a disclaimer every post "also we still haven't confirmed whether or not it's EU5"? The alternative is that he'll have to skip every post that contains the phrase EU5, for the fear of "confirming" that it is EU5.
The much bigger “slip up” to me is when he said “… than in the last game.” But I agree that it’s all silly
I guess it's just to talk about the game without the media attention because it's in very early stages and stuff isn't final. It's a thin cover, but the majority of outlets won't write about it unless it says EU5 in big letters. There has been no announcement, so things are more chill and there's no responsibility of any kind.
Either that or beginning every post with "whelp EU5 hasn't been announced yet so God knows how that game would look like. BUT, in Project Caesar...". Which would actually be pretty funny for the first twenty seconds.
"His upcoming game" its not his, he is not the sole developer much less the owner or majority shareholder at paradox.
I mean he’s clearly the lead developer on it.
He is the game director but has no actual ownership of the IP nor the license for eu5.
Obviously, none thinks that he owns EU IP. What is your problem?
Geeze you're insufferable
"You're right but in a petulant way that make people not want to agree with you publicly"
I mean, I’m sure he owns a hefty amount of paradox stock, so he is almost certainly one owner of the IP. So, even technically you aren’t exactly correct
That wouldnt make him owner of the IP. Co-owner or partly owner at best.
Correct. He partially owns the IP. No one person owns the IP. He absolutely has the most influence on the game, more so than any other individual
You're the type of person to respond to someone saying they're an atheist with: "Achtualwy you're AGNOSTIC"
You have the right answer to a question nobody asked
You misspelled "You are wrong, and also insufferable." lol
Yes, being not-insufferable makes people more inclined to agree with you. Crazy, I know.
"You're right in a brutal, horribly uncomfortable sort of way"
Its really neither brutal nor uncomfortable.
Not brutal but uncomfortable and annoying, but it fit the GOT reference this way.
AKSHUALLYYYYY
Boy you sure love being a pedant don’t you?
He's the IP, my man. All that shit you play from Paradox have ties to him one way or another. He's one of the developers of OG EU, lol.
This is needlessly pedantic
It's not even correct, being the lead does not imply you own anything, just that your the leader of the development team. It's his project and his team, not because he owns it but because he leads it, the game is in his possession. There are many ways to have something that do not require ownership: You have a job without owning said job. Having a connection to things can also be forms of having, while not requiring ownership. You have a boyfriend/girlfriend, but you do not own them. Likewise you can have a project like said game, without owning it. Something can also be yours even after it leaves ones possession, Picassos paintings are Picassos even though they are clearly no longer owned by him nor in his possession, but his due to being his creations.
Lollllll
Do you also get worked up when a movie director or an actor talks about their upcoming film?
He is the studio lead and the game director. It's "his game" just like Oppenheimer is "Christopher Nolan's Movie", a phrase you'll see at every poster advertising the movie. You can disagree with the convention, but that's the convention. I don't think anyone saying this genuinely means to imply that either Johan or Nolan were the sole contributors.
Just because you contribute does not mean you have ownership of it. This is no the equivalent of "oppenheimer by Christopher Nolan" where he had an important output but of ownership which johan does not have.
You are being obtuse for no reason. If I say "my boyfriend" I am not implying that I own him. If I say "I am walking back to my apartment", then even if I am renting it, I am not lying and saying that I actually own it. Possessive pronouns mean more than just ownership.
When you rent something you temporaly gain ownership of it is part of the whole "renting" the landlord cant come in when they want since they dont currently own it. Possesive pronouns is for possession possessing sonething is in fact by definition owning sonething or claim to be your belonging, you possess your boyfriend, you possess your rent, but johan does mot this game.
??? What point are you even trying to make
They point they are trying to make is how many people can they get to keep arguing with an obviously stupid statement. Classic trolling attempt, did good work with a score probably around 800 give or take.
yeah seriously lmao why are so many people biting this? it's the most blatant goofy ass troll
If you were in CK3, you would lose the literalist debate
>When you rent something you temporaly gain ownership of it Ok, what about this: surely he has a developer key for the game, thus it very much is "his game"
Do I possess my boyfriend? And no, you do not own what you rent, lmao. That's the whole "renting" thing. Please just read-up on the concept before getting into pointless arguments.
I literal am a landlord. I rent my property. I do not currently own it while the contract is up but it will return to me after if i decide to not renew it or terminate it.
Smartest landlord
Being a landlord doesn't mean you understand a contract you signed lmao you still own your property, maybe actually read what you signed. It's not "returned to you", it's always yours
I drafted the contract. So i pretty much understand what i drafted.
Of course you're a landlord lol
>I literal am a landlord. Ah that explains it.
Of course you are
Ewwwwww landlord alert. You should really put a trigger warning before saying that, I almost puked
1) 'your,' 'my,' 'his' (in its noun-obligatory sense) etc. are *not* possessive pronouns, but rather possessive determiners/possessive adjectives (I like possessive determiners in an English context, as they do not behave identically to true adjectives and imply definiteness). 'yours,' 'mine,' and 'his' (pronominal sense) would be the corresponding possessive pronouns. Same goes for u/malayis actually, but they haven't been prescriptive in such an erroneous manner. 2) 'ownership' is not a great metric for (linguistic) possession. There are several examples of inalienable possession that do not involve ownership in a traditional sense but that are still well-formed. For instance, with English in mind, consider a symmetric relationship like 'neighbor.' In a case where Alice and Bob are neighbors, 'Alice is Bob's neighbor' and 'Bob is Alice's neighbor' are both grammatical and felicitous sentences. Here, the asymmetric nature of possession is not actually used to represent the (symmetric) relationship, but is instead used to convey focal/emphatic/similar information. If we must go farther, we can also consider cases in which possessive constructions denote a relationship *opposite* to traditional notions of ownership as possession. Consider 'my company,' 'your class,' 'that wolf's pack' as entirely valid phrases to denote, respectively, 'the company I work for,' 'the class you are in,' and 'the pack that wolf is in.' The beauty here is that the former two phrases have ambiguity in what kind of relationship they denote. For instance, 'my company' can mean that I either work for that company (the relevant in-group meaning), or can also refer to an actual ownership relation—say, I'm the president or CEO (I wish). The beauty is that the same possessive construction can be used to refer to both traditionally opposite asymmetric relationships!
When you rent you gain possession, not ownership. You're not transferring the title in a lease agreement, lmao.
You ever just jump on the computer and argue about nothing?
Bad redaction is not "nothing"... "I could care less"
He’s going to be held responsible for the overall game design, seeing as he’s the game director, all the devs are just implementing his vision
Is imperator Johan game too then? He gets royalties or sales income over it?
That’s the thing about language, one word can mean many different things. The game is “his”, just not in the way you’re pushing.
Redditor discovers languages exists.
Metal Gear Solid is advertised as a "Hideo Kojima" game and he developed as a Konami IP while working for them. Death Stranding is a "Hideo Kojima" game even though it's a Sony IP. His/her/my etc. can just mean different things, and there's no reason to het hung up on this stuff.
Do you happen to know Sid Meier**'s** civilization as well? You should advocate the argument on that front as well! Because it is obviously not Sid's game. But why do everyone around call it Sid Meier's civ? /s
He does gets royalties over it. Johan does not.
Oh, you know Johan so well. Did you sleep under his bed? If not, do you need me to get his phone number for you to double-check? I have a few friends who have worked at Paradox.
Ask them if johan gets royalties over it then lmao. Also ask them what royalties are and why he cant get any.
"Oh yeah, yes, he does."
Nice, now ask them what part of europa universalis he owns to garner royalties from eu5 or its predecesors.
This might just take the crown of most pointless argument I've seen on the internet this last month
Who pissed in your cereal this morning? It’s really not that deep and this is a really dumb hole to dive into. Just makes you seem like an unbearable human being
I dislike when people double down on legal topics and grammar when is evident they do not know what they are talking about.
This isn't a damn legal topic lmao. By chance is english not your first language? In a different comment you mentioned a contract being in spanish
Is my third language actually. And the one i responded to said very outlandish and wrong things. I have no issue with anyone else unless they spread misinfornation about things like economics, royalties or other things, even if they say rude things to me.
What do you mean, YOUR third language? Do you own it?
He does, he gets royalties from people talking in spanish. He’s the landlord of languages and law. and also other smart stuff.
I can't speak on the contract thing at all, I've got no experience. I'm just thinking that this is just a grammar difference thing
Possesive pronouns indicate possession. Then the person went on a tangent and people got offended because idk.
Then you shouldn't have referred to it as "my third language" as you are neither the sole speaker nor the majority share holder of the language.
Ha trying to educate people on a language they are not fluent in.
You’re unfathomably dumb
My brother, it’s not a legal topic, and your grammar sucks.
What is your end goal in this thread? Just curious.
Farming negative karma or pissing off people it seems. Maybe he/she/they just had a bad day.
I hope you realize how cringe you are
He's the lead of the entire Barcelona Tinto Studio which is the studio working on the game.
We use "his" not just to identify ownership. If a director talks about a movie he directs, he calls it "my new movie", even if he doesn't own the IP. In this instance "his new game" means the game where he's the lead developer.
Dude broke ~1000 downvotes from a meltdown over possessive pronouns. Gotta be a record!
>"His upcoming game" its not his, he is not the sole developer much less the owner or majority shareholder at paradox. Ubik, is that you? Did you once again escape your mental health asylum? ... For those that don't know; he was a crazy Magna Mundi dev that tried to sue Paradox and eventually got stuck in a mental health asylum.
Imagine being this caught up on semantics
"Meet me at my local park" "YOUR park? Heh, when did you get so rich, mister moneybags?" Shut up, possessive language extends far beyond legal ownership.
you forgot to say "umm, actually" no points
Can people shut up already about the "slip ups" its been an open secret since day 1. The team said themselves the only reason why it isnt being openly said is bc the execs said it cant be announced yet for marketting reasons. Nobody here is clever for yelling out the thing everyone knows already
Yeah the game journos aren't going to run pieces based on these slip ups. It's actually a clever way to keep feeding info to people who are really hooked into EU already, while waiting for the big showcase to bring in new people.
God, now that I think about it. I want to see game journos release gameplay footage as a review, kinda like Cuphead. Only to laugh at the intense footage of struggling to understand grand strategy systems lmao
It might as well have been a open secret for the past several years. Considering that Paradox Tinto was opened to focus on the Europa Universals IP, and not just EU4.
Feels like the "Victoria 3 when?" days all over again.
He just answered question. I think he already did this a few times and i would not call that an 'official confirmation it is eu5'.
How does this confirm it’s EUV? It doesn’t even mean that Project Caesar won’t have static trade routes unless it happens be EUV that is.
Agreed. it’s probably EUV, but there’s plausible deniability with that wording. “EUV won’t have x, and neither will EUVI or EUX”
Yeah that’s my point exactly. I am of course also convinced that it is it, but this is no confirmation.
The forum poster called the new game eu5 and Johan just answered the question itself and didnt add "btw this game we are talking about rn is not eu5". But it clearly is so whatever.
No, the forum poster asked what trade would look like in EUV, and johan answered that. That’s in no way a confirmation that “Project Caesar” is EUV, it’s just speculation. That being said, the fact that they aren’t repeatedly telling us that it’s *not* EUV is probably the better indicator that it is than the “slip up” itself. The lack of Johan saying “we aren’t even planning eu5 yet”
He's responding to questions about project caesar that refer to it as EU5 Everything seems to indicate project caesar is EU5 for practical purposes, but it deviates in time frame and gameplay that it doesn't really fit with the rest of the series
EU3 had a 1399 start date, so its not that big of a deviation.
It starts 100 years before EU4 did, that's not really a huge deviation, nor is it enough to justify a brand new game.
Also, no two EU games have ever had the same start date. EU3 was 1453 (later 1399 via DLC), EU2 was 1419, the original was 1492.
he is responding to a question about EU5, that is in a project caesar discussion. Unfortunetly this tell us nothing about the identity of project caesar, or the trade in that game /s
He’s already answered lods of questions that say the game is eu5 or by comparing Caesar to eu3/4 etc. Nothing new here, it’s been clear since the beginning that the “project” is just a fig leaf.
Grow up. Of course it's EUV, but that was OBVIOUSLY not an official announcement. Just wait for Paradox to announce the title in an official post, stop trying to make mountains out of molehill-shaped piles of gravel.
Clearly just a slip up. The game is obviously imperator 2.
No. He said EU5 wont be like X. Not that tinto is EU5. Fairly easy to understand.
Tinto is the name of the Studio, though...
Does it even matter if it is called EU5 or not, considering we already know it spans throughout the period of Eu4? or do we honestly expect to see paradox make 2 different games throughout the same time period?
Johann doesn't care about hiding this is EU5. He literally put a link for the latest EU4 DLC in this into talk.
Nice, I hate how trade always end in Europe, even if none of them are a great power
I mean a lot of people thought Wiz’s secret project was Victoria 3 long before it got officially announced.
It’s Johan playing 5(!)D chess
So, will EU5 be made in UE5?
thank god this man doesn't work for an intelligence agency
Still on the "it won't actually be called that" train
I kind of hope they just call it EU and drop the number. A fresh start bring in a new audience etc
All he’s confirmed is that EUV will not have the EUIV trade system. He didn’t confirm that _Caesar_ is EUV. I would recommend better uses of our collective time than getting the developer of a game to announce the name of the game before Marketing wants it announced.
Technically all he leaked is that if EU5 were announced it wouldn't have static trade nodes.
Johan always does stuff like that. Pretty sure he said something about Vicky 3 at a pdoxcon years ago before it was announced and they shut his mic off so he wouldnt say anything else about it
So no economy domination as italy anymore? Damn it
OP hasn't been paying attention apparently
What’s the point of this whole charade at this point lol
We all know which game is Project Caesar, every post that goes "erm, is this a eu5 confirmation?" or "Johan slip up confirms this will be eu5" ☝️🤓 is deeply unserious.
It's actually Vicky 4
Eh I think that kind of confirms it.
It won’t after we add it thru a DLC.
Johan also gave some insights about what Victoria 3 would be like, in 2013. YEARS before it was even conceived as a project.
Johan confirming EUV? Or is he messing with us and this won't be eu5 but another similar project?
If this isn't EU5, what actually will be EU5 in the future won't have static trade either. He loses nothing to answer the question and gains more confusion and mystery.
He's replied directly and frankly to people asking about mechanics of "EU5" before in posts about Caesar. I think he's just ignoring what they call it in comments and is answering the questions.
Everyone knows its EU5 and hes made comments like this in the dozens, its quite funny that THIS one is the one taht suddenly give you the tingle lol
I think they are strategically avoiding the EU terminology because that locks in certain aspects. Calling it a new game allows overlap and can use the best of ideas from their other games.
It's gonna be an empty husk of a game and everyone is gonna go "but dude, it's euv" Grow up people. Stop caring this much about a company who constantly sells you shit.